Monitoring traffic to nickel and dime you

We're on the verge of a new and insidious attack on the Internet: …

I've seen the future, and it's a tad bit scary. Here's what in the works: networking analysis technology that "knows" what kind of content is being passed on a network, and can act appropriately. Perhaps it will block the traffic. Or, maybe you'll be charged for it. The future, in some places, is now.

Voice-over-IP, be it in the form of PC-based Skype or home service such as Vonage, is becoming massively popular. And why not? While many have already ditched land-lines because of cell phones, there's still no shortage of people who would like to see their phone bill either sliced in half, or eliminated all-together. This has traditional phone companies running scared, and not a few of them are hoping to stave off the defection of customers by luring them in with DSL packages laced with their own VoIP offerings.

But what happens when the telecos have broad powers over their networks? In the past, it wasn't possible for them to do much about VoIP.

Enter Narus. The San Francisco Bay company has been working hard for the past several years at developing innovative network analysis technology, long before anyone really foresaw the popularity of VoIP in 2005. However, their software is being used in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Germany to block VoIP calls from traditional phone networks. Some countries and phone service providers don't like being left out of the fiscal loop, as it were.

Could it happen in the US? Yes and no. The US already has laws on the books that would make it illegal for a carrier to block traffic from a competitor, but don't worry, Narus' president of marketing Jay Thomas has it all figured out. Prepare to be incensed.

"But there's nothing that keeps a carrier in the United States from introducing jitter, so the quality of the conversation isn't good," Thomas says. "So the user will either pay for the carrier's voice-over-Internet application, which brings revenue to the carrier, or pay the carrier for a premium service that allows Skype use to continue. You can deteriorate the service, introduce latency [audible delays in hearing the other end of the line], and also offer a premium to improve it."

This Balkanization of the Internet by competitors cannot be tolerated. "Network Neutrality," the view that networks should not discriminate against devices or services as a principle, is going to become a rallying call in the next several years. Barbara van Schewick has written a great paper on the topic (PDF). I recommend looking it over before declaring this to be a non-issue.

While not accusing Verizon of anything, let me use them as an example. Their FIOS service will bring truly high-speed internet to the home, and with it, all kinds of possibilities, from phone to TV, to video on demand and any number of information services for devices in your home. However, under no circumstances should it be allowed for companies such as Verizon to "charge extra" for non-degraded service of a competitor's product, let alone be allowed to flat-out block other services. Could you imagine, for example, if Verizon or Comcast required you to, say, use a certain phone supplied by them? Or, what if they just charged you more to use your TiVo or Media Center, just because you didn't use their (advertising laden) DVR offerings? Again, I'm speaking in the hypothetical potential for companies to use their networks to bolster their own products by making other products less financially viable or attractive. This is not the same thing as charging more for a faster connection or additional services.

The FCC and Congress want to encourage broadband growth, but at the same time, we have to be vigilant and make sure that the relevant companies play fair on their networks. I think the threat is larger than is assumed, and when we start talking about industries that pay taxes and fees to the various levels of governments, it's not just corporate money that will be protected.

In closing, let me note that I'm well aware of all of the end-runs that people have in mind. Encrypting content, for example, might render Narus feeble. But if you've paid any attention to the DMCA and its aftermath, then you know that "end runs" can not only be made illegal, but they can come at the cost of Fair Use and sane law.

Ken Fisher / Ken is the founder & Editor-in-Chief of Ars Technica. A veteran of the IT industry and a scholar of antiquity, Ken studies the emergence of intellectual property regimes and their effects on culture and innovation.